By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - The Wii U is the perfect opportunity to bring multiplayer to the next level

RolStoppable said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
RolStoppable said:

Do you mean people who live in the same house buy multiple consoles and copies to play a game together online?

You really haven't heard about it before?

I heard about it, but I would have never thought that anyone would assume that this is the case for a lot of people. You use this is as the base of your argument for why it would financially harm Nintendo, if they expanded local multiplayer gaming. I mean, the financial harm is already silly in and of itself, but supported with this reasoning you could be Gilgamesh's cousin.


Like I said; still more harm. It may not be very many people who does it (even though I know quite a few alone), but if you expect a great push in sales by making 7 player local multiplayer possible and that cover up the lost systems/software sold, then that's an argument coming from Gilgamesh's brother.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Like I said; still more harm. It may not be very many people who does it (even though I know quite a few alone), but if you expect a great push in sales by making 7-player local multiplayer possible and that cover up the lost systems/software sold, then that's an argument coming from Gilgamesh's brother.

Oh really? Your Mario Kart argument comes down to this: People want to play races where twelve humans participate, otherwise they would just settle for local multiplayer and eight CPU drivers.

Now with six player splitscreen you increase the enjoyment for those people who want to play local multiplayer while the people who want to play online will still settle for multiple consoles and copies, because six humans don't do it for them. There is only gain in this equation, so where does this loss you speak of come from?


Mario Kart Wii was used as an example where the number of players are very limited on one console, thus encouraging people to buy systems and software for themselves instead of sharing. And this will be way more widespread if Wii U actually get some "hardcore" games/gamers onboard. Sure, they could limit this 7-player multiplayer thingy for casual games like Mario Party, but then all the others would want the same thing.

Whatever you do; don't get me wrong. I'd love to play Super Smash and other games with more than 4-players, but for Nintendo's sake I hope they skip it.



RolStoppable said:
Ail said:
RolStoppable said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Did you even read my post? I said it may hinder hardware and software sales. Acessories would probably stay pretty much the same, however.

Yes, I read it. You seem to come from a fantasy land where Wii sales were driven by online multiplayer.

Yeah whereas house where there is room for 7 to sit in front of the tv and see it well enough to game  totally exist outside of fantasy land.............

My living room isn't even 25 square meters big and I can comfortably fit seven people into it. I don't think that I am living in a palace.


There's a difference between sitting 7 and having all 7 of them have a clear view of the TV...



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

RolStoppable said:

You seem to believe that limiting players will encourage sales while giving players more freedom will lead to a decrease in sales. In reality, the opposite is the case. Take download play on handhelds for example. By your logic, removing download play would lead to a higher amount of copies being sold, because each player needs their own copy of the game. But what would actually happen is a decrease in sales, because most people would think that it's too expensive to get multiplayer rounds started. Buying a game like Mario Party DS would be seen as pretty much worthless without download play, but with it, you can play multiplayer with any DS owner, thus the game actually has a lot of value.

Another example would be limiting the amount of save files per game card to one (quite a few handheld games do this). Once again, by your logic, this should increase sales. But it doesn't, because people who want to try out a friend's game cannot do so anymore, because the single save file would need to be erased. No exposure means a potential sale is being lost. That's one of the reasons why a game like The World Ends With You didn't find more success. Can't let someone try the game, if it means sacrificing the save file.

Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D went for an even more restrictive save file policy. Sales suffered tremendously for this, because the perceived value of the game dropped through the floor.

Limiting the exposure of games does not help sales. It hurts them. The Wii in particular was so successful, because people tried it out at a friend's place. Increasing the value of local multiplayer by increasing the number of players can only have a positive effect on sales. More exposure, more people having more fun, more sales.


That's one side of the coin, but the Wii is special: The word of mouth does not apply to motion controls as it's something that they have to try out to fully enjoy.

You can't compare download play to split-screen as it means that all players involved already owns a 3/DS, and then will want to be able to play the game at home, possibly with his/her friend through the internet. Playing split-screen on the other hand let everyone share the same hardware, which is the true money maker for Nintendo. I remember from my own experience how I never bought a Playstation since I could go to my friend's house anyway, and even more people came home to me to play Nintendo 64 and Gamecube since they didn't own one themselves.

The one-save-file policy does actually push sales in cases like Mario Kart 7. Me and my brother used to share the same cartridge but using my username and knowing that all progress made where going straight to me, he felt a need to get his own copy of the game. Had there been several save files he might as well just kept sharing it with me.



If any console pulls of massive multiplayer on one box, it will be sony lol. Think about, 6 players on screen as you suggested. Now picture everyone wearing those 3d glasses that allow you to see only a certain screen thing. Now 12 people could play. Add in Sony's eventual wiiu controller copy/ innovated version. Now you have 13 players. Heck, Sony may even support 2 controllers so add that up to 14 players. If more than 14 players fit in your living room, purchasing another system shouldn't be a problem for your socioeconomic group. Not to mention vita potentially getting in on the action.



"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." -My good friend Mark Aurelius

Around the Network
homer said:
If any console pulls of massive multiplayer on one box, it will be sony lol. Think about, 6 players on screen as you suggested. Now picture everyone wearing those 3d glasses that allow you to see only a certain screen thing. Now 12 people could play. Add in Sony's eventual wiiu controller copy/ innovated version. Now you have 13 players. Heck, Sony may even support 2 controllers so add that up to 14 players. If more than 14 players fit in your living room, purchasing another system shouldn't be a problem for your socioeconomic group. Not to mention vita potentially getting in on the action.


I nearly died laughing at 14 players, and then Vita came up out of nowhere!



RolStoppable said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

That's one side of the coin, but the Wii is special: The word of mouth does not apply to motion controls as it's something that they have to try out to fully enjoy.

You can't compare download play to split-screen as it means that all players involved already owns a 3/DS, and then will want to be able to play the game at home, possibly with his/her friend through the internet. Playing split-screen on the other hand let everyone share the same hardware, which is the true money maker for Nintendo. I remember from my own experience how I never bought a Playstation since I could go to my friend's house anyway, and even more people came home to me to play Nintendo 64 and Gamecube since they didn't own one themselves.

The one-save-file policy does actually push sales in cases like Mario Kart 7. Me and my brother used to share the same cartridge but using my username and knowing that all progress made where going straight to me, he felt a need to get his own copy of the game. Had there been several save files he might as well just kept sharing it with me.

Really? So games don't need to be tried out to be fully enjoyed or what?

Your argument against download play makes no sense for your position. You say that download play leads to purchases of software, because people will want to play the game at home. By the way, the big money in the video game business is in the software, that goes for Nintendo as well. The story about your youth probably doesn't hold true for your current lifestyle anymore. Besides, it's just an anecdote. I am not saying that your experiences are lies, but it's foolish to assume that one's personal experiences are equal to those of most (or even all) other people.

If you want to strengthen your argument, you should name some examples where splitscreen gameplay hurt a game's sales.


The big money is in the hardware because I'm pretty certain few people only buy one single software for it. How is that not clear?

I said that comparing the download play to splitscreen makes no sense since it means you've already bought a system (and thus will likely buy several titles for it), while splitscreen gives gamers a reason not to buy the console altogether. That's where my personal experiences enter the picture. I never assumed that those experiences are equal to most people, but a substantial part.

This is not about splitscreen hurting single game's sales, but stopping potential console buyers.



One note you didn't touch was the one tablet controller or two. That's what I was actually hoping this thread would be about.... Nintendo needs to fix their last E3 and state that it will at least work with two tablet controllers... hopefully more.



Hmm, interesting idea. I think the Wii already was very successful on multiplayer. I have sometimes friends at my place and we play Wii Sports/Resort, Raving Rabbids, Wii Play, Smash Brothers or Mario Kart. That already works well for Nintendo. They would be crazy giving up on this. I'm not against supporting more local players, but I don't think it would be needed often. Yes, Smash Brothers with six would be very cool. But reality is, I don't think most people get together six friends at once. I have a hard time coordinating my regular movie-evening, scheduling different people. Although over time I have around ten people participating, there were never more than four at one time. So increasing possibilities for local multiplayer is great, but I don't believe in a much bigger potential, than 4 player games.

Mixing local multiplayer and online would be a good option though.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Maybe 6 players on the same screen is a bit of a stretch but, assuming the WiiU could manage 2 tablet controllers at the same time, you could still have 6 player split-screen: 4 on TV, 2 on tablets.
It would actually be a great opportunity to explore new multiplayer concepts.